User talk:LizardWizard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I will respond here to comments made here. If you want a dialogue, I suggest you watch this page or ask that we conduct the dialogue on your own talk page.

Contents

[edit] Hello & Thanks

I saw today's vandalism of Anal sex, but you fixed it before i could. I saw in the page history that you've been watching that page very diligently, and reverted quite a few vandalisms. Thanks for your watchfulness! foobaz·✐ 04:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Heh, I don't watch that page in particular. I mostly patrol the recent edits, but I can be pretty sure that every time Anal Sex is on the list it's vandalism. LizardWizard 04:33, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Human Bioacoustics

Hello Lizard Wizard - your name is associated with a copyvio marking on Human Bioacoustics entry, claiming it's the same as the article found at http://www.lifespirit.org/SHRI-string-theory.htm (it is a slightly different version). There is no copyright violation since I am the author of both and have permission from SHRI - Sound Health Research Institute - to post it on Wikipedia. What do I need to do to get the "copyvio" removed? Ralph Fucetola ralph.fucetola@usa.net - 12:41 10 February 2005 (UTC)

If you and the SHRI understand that by posting the information to Wikipedia, it is released under the GNU Free Documentation License, you can repost it, with the stipulation that "if you obtain special permission to use a copyrighted work from the copyright holder under the terms of our license, you must make a note of that fact (along with names and dates)." (quoted from Wikipedia:Copyrights). LizardWizard 22:51, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC) Note, however, that if it is reposted I will list it for deletion, since it appears to me to be pseudoscience. If you plan to defend it, finding media coverage or peer review would be a good idea. LizardWizard 22:57, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Dear LizardWizard. Just read your comments of 10 February 2005. I am consulting with Ms. Edwards as to whether she wants to release the copyright. If she does, we will certainly defend Human BioAcoustics from the erroneous charge of "pseudoscience." Ms. Edwards is the recipient of a number of legitimate scientific recognitions, from both "alternative" and academic institutions, but, as in any relatively new area of study, it sometimes takes academia a while to catch up. This area of study qualifies as a Protoscience. - Ralph Fucetola ralph.fucetola@usa.net - 2:52 23 February 2005 (UTC)

BTW, as a previous short-time BioAcoustics researcher, I would like to point out that beginning in 2002, very restrictive & confidential yearly "contracts" were demanded of anyone who was to be part of the BioAcoustics or "HBA" flock. These contracts demand that the student / researcher cede ownership of all things bioacoustic derived from the study of alleged confidential intellectual property, all of which is publicly available and offered by others IMHO. That's right, if you sign the contract, you forfeit all your rights to your information and developments to the person you pay large dollars to study with. In 2003 a stipulation for significant Liquidated Damages was added to the "contract" for any perceived misbehaving. Whether HBA is proto- or pseudoscience pales next to the contract. Wlmeyer 21:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

I see no-one has welcomed you yet ;)!


Welcome!

Hello, LizardWizard, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Eleassar777 13:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually I think someone did welcome me and I just wiped my personal pages clean, but I still appreciate the sentiment =). LizardWizard 06:21, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IfD Vote

Hi LizardWizard, I recall that you voted in favor of keeping the photograph inline at autofellatio. Well, its subsequent linkage has emboldened the anti-photo people to put it up for deletion on WP:IFD. I'd appreciate your views on the subject. Thanks, TIMBO (T A L K) 22:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rafael Cordero

Holy Moly! you're right! I wrote that article (Rafael Cordero (educator)) a long time ago and nobody, not even I noticed that BIG blooper! I'm glad that there was a LizardWizard around to notice it. I fixed it, thanks! Take care my friend Tony the Marine|talk

[edit] Autofellatio vote

Greetings. I'm contacting you because you voted to keep Image:Autofellatio.jpg, but you indicated that part of your reasoning was because the image was not demonstrated to be a copyright violation. Someone recently found the image on http://www.wowboy.com/welcome.htm, a porn pay site, with the notice "© WowBoy 2001-2004, All rights reserved". I don't know if this changes your vote or not, but I thought you might want to know. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 02:27, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 127.0.0.1

oh! sorry, i was trying to test something related to editing anon users' talk pages, and that was the first one i thought of that wasn't likely to be a real user. i meant to change it back when i was done, but forgot. i've reverted back to how it was now. —kate

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Who's next (song)

I'd like to invite you to come back to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Who's next (song), and reconsider your vote. I'm advocating a vote of Redirect per Harmil, and you can see the recommendation that I'm making on the vote page (it's big and detailed). Yeah, I know this guy is a troll, but the fact that he's a troll doesn't mean we shouldn't have this information point to the right place. I hope that makes sense, and happy editing! -Harmil 23:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pro circumcision POV pushers are attempting to censor wikipedia

Thank you for your input on the proposal to use the term intact rather than uncircumcised in the main circumcision article. I thought it was very balanced and fair. Not to sound melodramatic but its become clear that pro circumcision POV pushers are censoring wikipedia uninhibitedly, which can be seen in their attempt to remove the article Aposthia and removal of the disambiguation page at uncircumcised to eliminate any other interpretations of the word supported by the dictionary that they feel improves their political agenda. For the sake of intellectual freedom I implore you to look into these matters and make choice about how you will respond. Thanks again. Sirkumsize 23:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I just want to chime in with my agreement. I'm actually fairly apathetic about circumcision, so the amount of hostility I've gotten from the pro camp has surprised and bothered me. I think Wikipedia is best served by honest, complete articles, even if that means stating some simple, well-supported facts that distress one side or the other. Alienus 02:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That stupid degree thing

No. It's still not done. I changed my major from software engineering to a comprehensive computer science degree in December of 2004...which meant that I still had to take a class in operating systems. Well, I took the class this past spring, and ended up getting bacterial pneumonia (and a subsequent sinus infection from hell), and was out of school for over 6 weeks total of the 16 weeks of class. So, I took an incomplete, and my tenured professor has his own ideas about what taking an incomplete means, and I'm certainly in no position to argue with him over it. So, I'm stuck in limbo until Dec.  :-\ As for archiving my talk page, I'm waiting until it gets to 80 sections...and you helped it one step closer.  :-p Tomer TALK 02:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anon revert

The anon just committed his 5th revert. Thanks for your involvement, it's bedtime for me. I added it to his 3RR vio section. 'night! -- RyanFreisling @ 04:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I would like to thank you for your support on my RFA. Your comment made my day :-). Rl 09:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another Poll

Just thought you'd like to know that another poll (this time official) is taking place toward the bottom of the NAMBLA discussion page in which users are asked (yes or no) if NAMBLA should be categorized in each of the pedophilia organizations, pederasty organizations, and LGBT organizations. Corax 22:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Axe versus Axis

[edit] Smith

You are giving too much credit to Smith. The problem is not Smith - Despite him being a lunatic completely oblivious to all arguments that the opposing faction brings forward, he could be worked with. It is the equally uncompromising attitude of a number of adherents of a faith, that have no regard for WP:NPOV whatsoever or a factually correct article, that unfortunately are very high ranking in the power structure of Wikipedia, and support Smith's every move, that are the problem. Smith himself, if kept under control, and prevented from WP:OWNing the article, could with his -albeit biased- expertise be very helpful to the project - The faction of religious zealots supporting him does not have any such expertise, and without Smith would be completely at a loss trying to keep the article the biased way it currently is. Notice how Smith did not remove me: The faction of religious zealots did. I never wanted to remove Smith just because of his expertise, and if he has to be removed, I would regret this. 85.25.141.60 11:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-ejaculate

Wikipedia:Profanity: "Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." A picture of some exhibitionist's penis is indeed profane and, judging from the discussion page and frequent deletions, is clearly offensive. It does not add to the article at all, since "clear lubricating fluid that is issued from a man's penis when he is sexually aroused" pretty much tells the whole story. Clearly, you have this on their watchlist, choosing to ignore the link at "Wikipedia is not censored" to Wikipedia:Profanity, and re-add every time someone deletes. And many people will not be convinced by Wikipedia policy that violates their own ideas of what Wikipedia should be. But I hope that you will respect not only what Wikipedia rules say, but also what Wikipedia aspires to be. People who insist on unnecessary explicit photographs will make Wikipedia something avoided by teachers, students, the press, and the general public, since it enforces the popular image of Wikipedia as a Wild West where smut and lies are easily promulgated, rather than a self-regulating source of information that is just as reliable and relevant as a traditional encyclopedia. 192.68.228.4 22:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Circumcision

I would respectfully suggest you read all of the history, including USer:Nokilli's personal attacks against me, and his refusal to engage in reasonable discourse as opposed to using Wikipedia as a platform for his distinct POV. His edits are against any consensus, and only serve to, as he puts it, paint circumcision in as bad a light as possible. That is not positive editing, but vandalism. -- Avi 00:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I would respectfully assert that I've read more of Circumcision's talk pages than you have. I've been watching it for many months (though I admit I don't read all of it).
Anyhow, what Nokilli is doing is not vandalism. He is one of a long line of editors whose position on circumcision is more moderate than Jakew's who have come to the circumcision article, tried to save it from the deplorably POV state that it's currently in, been rebuffed by Jakew's misapplication of various policies, and then recognized Jakew as a wolf in sheep's clothing and become (understandably, I think) uncivil. Every so often I chime in just to let them know that they're not alone. LWizard @ 00:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My thanks to you LizardWizard. Avi is pro (being Orthodox) circ. Jakew has been quite persistant and extremely pro-circ. All I really want to do is have parents read facts. I am sorry that I have gotten carried away, but it's been frustrating (Jakew's objective).

I hope parents will know that estrogen receptors are being removed (men have cycles too), that smegma has beneficial properties or easily rinses away, and that the potential preventative medical benefits of a circ can be gained if you practice safe sex, pee and wash with water after sex, and wash your penis daily with water (just like any circ'd SHOULD DO).

I hope parents will soon have the facts to know to ask for an experienced operator (it's usually relegated), demand anesthesia (still the minority), and demand that the surgeon leave all the frenulum ... if they choose to have their neonat circ'd.TipPt 17:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/z/User_talk%7ELizardWizard_e172.html"